RE: Refuting the False Divide: Judaism, Jesus, and the Continuity of God’s Covenant

Hey buddy.

Your question, “Where in Judaism or the Torah does it teach that Jesus, Yeshu ha Notzri (Jesus the Nazarene) is ‘God,’ the Creator of the Universe that must be worshipped?”

The above challenges the divine identity of Jesus based on Torah and Jewish tradition. I appreciate the chance to respond with evidence from ancient sources, refuting the idea that the Torah excludes this understanding. While traditional Judaism rejects Jesus’ divinity, pre-Rambam and pre-Rashi texts, the Zohar, and the Memra concept suggest a different early perspective, possibly reinterpreted later due to Christian persecution.

Ancient Sources on the Suffering Servant as Messiah

Before Rambam (1138–1204 CE) and Rashi (1040–1105 CE), Jewish texts linked the suffering servant of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 to the Messiah. The Targum Jonathan, a 1st–2nd century CE Aramaic paraphrase, renders Isaiah 52:13 as “Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper,” identifying the servant as the Messiah. Midrash Rabbah (Lamentations Rabbah 1:51), from the 5th–6th century CE, describes the Messiah, called the “Leprous One,” suffering for Israel’s sins, aligning with Isaiah 53:4 (“smitten by God”). The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 98b), compiled by the 6th century CE, mentions a Messiah ben Joseph who suffers and dies, echoing this servant. These pre-Rashi and pre-Rambam sources support a Messianic reading, contrasting with later views of Israel as the servant.

Zohar on the Messiah’s Equality with God

The Zohar, a Kabbalistic text from the late 13th century (attributed to Shimon bar Yochai, 2nd century CE), suggests the Messiah’s divine nature. Zohar II:97a describes the Messiah with a divine soul, united with the “Ancient of Days,” implying equality with God. Zohar III:173b states his suffering atones for Israel, a role tied to his divine status. Though post-Rashi, its mystical roots may reflect earlier oral traditions predating Rambam and Rashi, differing from the human Messiah focus that emerged later.

Jesus as Memra (דבר) or Logos in Ancient Judaism

The Memra, or “Word,” in Aramaic Targumim, acts as a divine intermediary. Targum Onkelos (1st–2nd century CE) translates Genesis 3:8 (“the Lord God walking”) as “the Word of the Lord God,” indicating God’s presence. Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 9:6 calls the “Mighty God” child the “Word of the Lord,” a title Messianics apply to Jesus (John 1:1, “the Word was God”). The Wisdom of Solomon (1st century BCE), a Jewish Hellenistic text, portrays Wisdom as a preexistent creative agent (7:25–26), akin to the Logos in Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE–50 CE), who calls the Logos God’s firstborn son and creator (Allegorical Interpretation 3.96). These pre-Ramban (1194–1270 CE) and pre-Rashi sources depict Memra as divine, aligning with Jesus, challenging later interpretations.

Reinterpretation by Rashi and Ramban Amid Persecution

Rashi’s 11th-century commentary on Isaiah 53 identifies the suffering servant as Israel, a departure from Targum Jonathan’s Messianic view. Ramban, in his 13th-century Paris Disputation (1240 CE), defends this, countering Christian claims. The shift likely responded to Christian persecution—medieval disputations (e.g., 1263 Barcelona) used Isaiah 53 to argue Jesus’ divinity, pressuring Jews to reinterpret. Rashi’s silence on this motive is understandable under threat, but historical context (e.g., Crusades, forced conversions) supports this inference. Pre-Ramban and pre-Rashi texts like Targumim and Philo show a divine Messiah tradition, suggesting modern Judaism’s stance evolved to protect against Christian dominance, not as the original belief.

Conclusion

@offgridlife, ancient sources—Targum Jonathan, Midrash Rabbah, Sanhedrin 98b—tie the suffering servant to the Messiah. The Zohar supports his divine equality, while Targumim, Wisdom of Solomon, and Philo’s Logos align Jesus with Memra, predating and differing from Ramban and Rashi’s Israel-centric view, likely adjusted due to persecution.